The Best Defense Is a Good Offense
(This one isn't
good, just offensive)
In a 2006 correspondence regarding the exposure of an SDA minister
- Frank Steyn - who raped a teenage houseguest, another SDA
writes us seeking to justify the minister by finding fault with us
and the victim.
Here are his letters, followed by our reply:
I have looked at your Testimonies [now “About Us”]. You say I
will not find doctrinal answers to my questions, although that is exactly
what I had hoped to obtain. To these I now also add: Do you believe that
ultimately all the wicked will be saved? and Do you believe in reincarnation
-- as well as communication with the dead, through séances or channeling?
You say I need to find “The Answer to your essential religious query,” which
sounds like mysticism, but it sidesteps the issue. I therefore look forward
to your letter.
I recall a fairly recent Jewish visitor of mine, who had embraced Unitarian
Universalism or something of that sort. It was a movement which permitted
such a wide spectrum of doctrines that anybody could join it, irrespective
of his beliefs. Against that background your being Jewish, embracing Universalism,
and rejecting the concept that the wicked dead would perish sounds rather
The next day, Edwin sent this note to a few on the list:
Dear unknown, distant friend,
You may want an answer to the following question: Who are these people who
are attacking Frank Steyn?
Go to Google and look at www.thepathoftruth.com and details on its web page.
The names Victor Hafichuk, Paul Cohen, and Sara Schmidt all appear on it under “Our
Testimonies.” [Now “About Us.”] Carol communicated
with the last mentioned at email@example.com, but she also has the e-mail
According to their names, they all seem to be Jewish, possibly of the Messianic
variety. They are definitely not Seventh-day Adventists, as may already be
observed from their following statement:
“The church of God is seen, yet not seen. Members
are real but not identified as a formal organization. When they meet, it
is not to have ‘church services.’ There
will be prayer, a discussion of spiritual matters as well as mundane, some
Bible study, gifts manifest, song, and ministering to one another. A few of
these elements or activities could be missing from time to time. The thing
is that it is God Who leads and directs; the Shepherd makes the decisions and
the sheep follow. Much of the time, they do not meet but they function in spirit
as the body of Christ nevertheless, everywhere they are, in all that they do,
together or apart, He being ever with and in them. The Church is a living organism
at all times.”
The Path of Truth rejects the concept of any organized church as evil and
therefore also Seventh-day Adventism. Specifically it condemns a variety of
beliefs as “Diabolic Doctrines.” The following teachings, which
Adventists believe, are some of them:
1. “God is three persons.”
2. “You must belong or go to a ‘church.’“
3. “God is trying to save the whole world now.”
4. “Man has been given a free will.”
5. “The Lord’s Supper”
6. “The dead are unconscious.”
7. “The wicked are annihilated.”
On the other hand, the Path of Truth also rejects the idea of eternal torment
for the wicked. It is most probably a variety of Trinitarian Universalism,
blending Unitarianism (which rejects the Trinity) and Universalism (which teaches
that all people, possibly even Satan) will one day be saved. But this movement
is very elastic and can accommodate just about any religious persuasion.
I have written to Victor Hafichuk for further details about their doctrines.
What I also wanted to know was whether they believed in reincarnation and communicating
with the dead. To these specifics I have not yet received an answer.
Another thing, the Path of Truth is very judgmental and prone to attacking
organizations and, apparently, individuals. They are, it seems, religious busy
bodies, somewhere on the lunatic fringe of Christianity. I wonder whether each
of them has always been so pure and righteous throughout their lives.
Regarding Carol, I know next to nothing. It has been suggested to me
that she has been divorced and remarried about five times, although I do not
know and do not care to pursue this matter further. Perhaps her accusation
is largely the product of a crush on Frank and sexual fantasies, which ? nursed
over the years and frustrated -- eventually turned to hatred and a desire to
destroy his ministry as well as his family. In this, however, she has probably
been abetted by members of the Path of Truth, of which she may be an adherent.
The alleged incident would have occurred about thirty-five years ago. A few
questions emerge, particularly three: if what she says did happen, it may well
have been largely with her cooperation, otherwise she would have screamed,
regardless; she had many years to confront him with the issue but, according
to her own statement, never did; above all, why now?
Even secular judiciaries have statutes of limitations. Should we not also,
in our dealings with other people, forgive? And if we do not, can we be sure
that the Lord will forgive us? He said he would not.
I resent being dragged into this affair through the mailing of Cohen, Hafichuk,
and Schmidt, nor do I at 75 and my heart impairment have the energy or time
to dig more deeply into such muck. You may, however, send this letter to all
the people you are now addressing (I have the e-mail addresses of only a few),
so they will know a little more about what they have been so gratuitously involved
Edwin de Kock
The only thing worse than a young fool is an old one. How is it that you answer
your own questions to us when you do not know the answers, and, furthermore,
when pointed to the material that contains the answers, you completely disregard
what you read there? How sad and tragic it is to see a man nearing the end
of life who has not learned this most elementary lesson - to keep one’s
mouth shut when one does not know what he or she is talking about. How much
sadder it is when that one professes to be Christ’s, and does such things
contrary to Him! But a fool is a fool, whether young or old, and displays the
nature of a fool:
“Every wise one deals with knowledge, but a fool lays open his folly” (Proverbs
Yet there is something worse than a fool, which is one who speaks before he
hears anything, as you do:
“Do you see a man hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool
than for him” (Proverbs 29:20 MKJV).
And also one who thinks he knows something, when he does not:
“Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool
than for him” (Proverbs 26:12 MKJV).
You fault us for proclaiming that God will judge, correct, and cleanse all
of His creation, for which He laid down His life. Tell us, then, what purpose
did His sacrifice serve, if it did not accomplish that for which He stated
beforehand it was expressly made (John 3:16)? You of all people should be most
thankful to hear this good news, having less hope than a fool in your present
ways! But I will proceed in the hope of better things, which I have by the
sure knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, knowing full well that illusions,
lies, and foolishness must be addressed before it can be put away and anything
good be established.
Now, perhaps you are senile or suffering from Alzheimer’s, and it would
appear rude of me to expose your mental incapacity (for those with eyes to
see). But your incapacities are not to be pitied because they are the result
of the wrath of God on your wicked ways that are contrary to Him. Your only
hope and chance for renewal and a sound mind is to repent from those wicked
You wrote to Victor, and now to everyone else, stating that we seem to be “Jewish,
possibly of the Messianic variety.” This was after we had directed you
to, and you had red, our testimonies under About
Us, in which it is stated,
quite clearly, in the very first sentence, that Victor was born Ukrainian Catholic.
In Sara’s testimony she states she was raised Lutheran (Schmidt is a
German name). In mine, I said I was born a Jew.
On such a superficial matter it is of no concern to us that you are wrong
on two out of three counts. I bring this up rather as an indication of how
blind, inattentive, and disrespectful you are towards the facts and those with
whom you have to do. If you cannot be trusted with being accurate in such simple
matters, who in their right mind would believe you to be competent to exercise
discernment in higher matters?
Here is an example of blindness coming from an evil eye, by which you speak
falsely of us:
“I wonder whether each of them has always been
so pure and righteous throughout their lives.”
Again, you red our testimonies, which answer this question in living color.
In there are the candid confessions of our all having been sinners, with Victor
even specifically listing many of his sins. I am thankful he did, because we
are then able to shut the mouths of fools like you. Why do I call you foolish
and wicked? Because you look to find fault to justify yourself when light exposes
your darkened mind. You have no use or love for truth. That is the definition
of a wicked fool. The wise will see, but the fool will not, even that which
is right before him:
“Wisdom is before him who has understanding, but the eyes of a fool
are in the ends of the earth” (Proverbs 17:24 MKJV).
“The way of the wicked is as darkness; they do not know at what they
stumble” (Proverbs 4:19 LITV).
You say: “The Path of Truth rejects the concept
of any organized church as evil and therefore also Seventh-day Adventism.”
Without a doubt we reject the works of men, in general and specifically, such
as the Seventh Day Adventist Church. We do so because the Lord rejects them
with great passion and unequivocal hatred of the things they do and preach
in His Name. Many are the blasphemies of the SDA’s, coming from that
false prophetess Ellen G. White, which we give evidence of in some of the links
you mention from Diabolical Doctrines, such as:
The Trinity (God Is Three Persons)
You Must “Go to Church”
God Is Trying to Save the Whole World
Man Has Free Will
The “Lord’s Supper”
Soul Sleep (The Dead in Christ Are Unconscious)
The Wicked Are Annihilated
The worse part is not your diabolical doctrines, but the stubborn, presumptuous,
and self-righteous spirit of the SDA’s, passed down by Ellen White, that
produces and loves these lies. How hard you people are against the Lord, Who
is, here and now, and is not only coming as you have erred from the beginning
with William Miller:
“I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, says the Lord,
Who is and Who was and Who is to come, the Almighty” (Revelation
He is here. He is with us, and has sent us to speak as His mouth to you, just
as Enoch prophesied:
“And Enoch, the seventh from Adam, also prophesied to these, saying,
Behold, the Lord came with myriads of His saints, to do judgment against all,
and to rebuke all the ungodly of them concerning all their ungodly works which
they ungodly did, and concerning all the hard things ungodly sinners spoke
against Him” (Jude 1:14-15 MKJV).
You resist God, not man.
How darkened and foolish of you, Edwin, to ask about communicating with the
dead and reincarnation! Find one thing on our site that disagrees with the
Word of God. You say you disagree, and your church disagrees, but you have
not shown us one thing that you can conclusively point to, and give us Scripture
to illuminate, where God disagrees with us. Not one. You don’t even try.
Regarding Carol you write:
“Perhaps her accusation is largely the product
of a crush on Frank and sexual fantasies, which ? nursed over the years and
frustrated -- eventually
turned to hatred and a desire to destroy his ministry as well as his family.”
Your evil surmisings and speculations serve what purpose? Frank has not denied
one word of Carol’s account, though he does not take any personal responsibility
for what happened, not even apologizing to her. Carol did not ask us to write
to Frank, nor has she ever mentioned him until his recent email. She was confessing
her sin; in her ignorance she thought it best to keep her mouth shut for the
sake of others. Your reasoning is asinine, Edwin. Only one who has not confessed
and forsaken his sins would think like you do. Woe to you that you try to hide
yourself in the name of “Christian” religion and blasphemy. Do
you think God does not see you?
You go on to say:
“The alleged incident would have occurred about
thirty-five years ago. A few questions emerge, particularly three: if what
she says did happen, it
may well have been largely with her cooperation, otherwise she would have screamed,
regardless; she had many years to confront him with the issue but, according
to her own statement, never did; above all, why now?”
Here is more of your inattentiveness; it was twenty five years ago. And Carol
said why she did not yell. Read her letter again, if you really want to know
why. She also said she has moved on, releasing any hurt feelings, forgiving
Frank. So why did she tell us, and, “why now,” you ask? Because
she has recently come to genuine repentance, which is ever accompanied by confession.
She now believes the Lord, Who would have all things out in the open. How wrong
is that, our aged defender of the unrepentant guilty? Frank was and is still
hiding his sins from everyone, but she could not hide what happened and continue
to live with the shame Frank was still bringing on her; by not saying anything,
she was, in effect, sanctioning and agreeing with that sin. You just do not
get it, do you? Frank was still writing to Carol as if what he did to her was
not a problem.
Do you have a daughter? How would you feel about a man slipping into bed with
her when she was 19, and he was 41, while his wife and children were in the
house and your daughter thought herself safe? Only Carol had no father or mother
to turn to. The only father figure there was Frank, the man who jumps her.
But why should I ask you these questions and expect you to answer rationally
and honestly? You obviously would send your family, and anyone else that got
in the way, to hell, just to maintain your own righteousness. That is what
you are doing here with your asinine questions and arguments.
With more of the same you write:
“Even secular judiciaries have statutes of limitations.
Should we not also, in our dealings with other people, forgive? And if we
do not, can we
be sure that the Lord will forgive us? He said he would not.”
“Even secular judiciaries have statutes of limitations,” you say,
as if time itself can erase sin. Only the blood of Christ, which is effectual
by the confessing and forsaking of sins by faith in Him, can bring forgiveness.
Does not the commandment say that God visits the iniquities of the fathers
to the third and fourth generations of them that hate Him? And what is this
about forgiveness, placing the onus on those wronged who confronted those who
have offended, according to Scripture? How is it you automatically defend an
unrepentant scoundrel who refuses confession, apology, or any kind of decent,
godly reconciliation with one he has violated, and even condemn the victim
with insinuations and evil speculations, though her letter clearly declares
confession toward God?
You ask the wrong questions of the wrong people. You should be talking to
Frank about why he is unrepentant. Why has he never apologized to Carol? Why
does he threaten us when we bring these things up, that which would be for
his good? He is where the problem lies. You are protecting a scoundrel because
you are also a scoundrel. Your appeal to the “Christian charity” of
others is the last refuge of a scoundrel. You wicked old man! Time is up on
You say, “I resent being dragged into this affair....”
Yet you bring in additional negative details about Carol to discredit her
further, (whether or not they are true is not the issue). Hypocrite! So do
many criminals resent being hauled before the judge. So do many gnash their
teeth when thrown in the clink. You hitch your wagon to a boatload of scofflaws,
being one yourself, and answer for your ways you must. It is not only Frank
but all those, like yourself, who justify him that are being judged here.
“He that justifies the wicked, and he that condemns the just, even they
both are abomination to the LORD” (Proverbs 17:15 KJV).
You write: “Regarding Carol, I know next
to nothing,” yet
you readily condemn her and side with Frank. Why? Because he is SDA? Because
you have sins yourself you do not relish being exposed? And who filled you in
on those details you
do know concerning Carol? Can we guess who it is? Will
that serve to support our point? Not that we need any support, or that Carol
is hiding anything. She is making herself transparent in a godly way, unlike
the crowd the Lord is now exposing.
In a letter to Victor, you asked, “Do you believe
that ultimately all the wicked will be saved?” You better hope that is the case; otherwise,
you have no hope; you, Frank, and all those who refuse to repent, taking Jesus
Christ’s Name in vain and using His sacrifice for all men to justify
yourselves in your wickedness.
We will indeed share this with the list, as you request. It is our great pleasure
and immense privilege. Everyone should and will know what is at stake, which
is life and forgiveness or sin unto death. This matter is the very opposite
of “gratuitous,” which only a light and treacherous fool would
think to call it, as you have. The Lord is finished winking at your wickedness.
His will be done.